Freedom of Speech in the Bush era

“Oryx, Do you think Kerry was lying to the Senate Committee about his experiences in 'Nam?

Oh, and GOOD stirring up the pot!
last edited: 2/07/05 1:14:03 PM”

“Of course he was lying, Limpy, because it was in his best career interest at the time. J F'ing K is nothing if not an opportunist.”

“And Bush is nothing but a scaremonger who's done a great job at making America as unsafe as it's ever been.”

“Right, unsafe. Which is why we've seen so many terrorist attacks on the homeland since 9/11. Jeesh. Some people just pray for the worst.”

“And of course once in the military it's wrong for anyone who's ever served, be they still servving or not, to criticize the actions of their commanders and various administrations. The brainwashing is pretty damn effective.”

“The war on Terror will not be as short as your attention span Oryx.”

“Oh, and the moment, they don't need to get to the "homeland" there are 120,000 sitting ducks in Iraq. I admire thier service and dedication is such difficult conditions. They do their country proud. But they shouldn't have been put in the line of fire in the first place. They were either lied to, or a huge mistake was made. They deserve better.”

“Spare me the empty slogans, y2. There's a difference between ingenuous criticism of the military and self-serving politicization of popular dissenting sentiments.”

“"Good. It's no wonder that 99% of veterans absolutely despise the 1% that trashes the military and our military engagements," spare me your unsubstantialted views.”

“That Eisenhower was such a pacifist appeaser.”

“True, it's based on my personal experience with veterans (I used to work at a VA hospital), but it's improbable that the hundreds or thousands of veterans I interacted with do not represent a typical sample.”

“Hey V, you're the one who posted it on the Freedom of Speech in the Bush Era thread.

And why didn't you answer NoProb's question?”

“Really, I would like anyone to show me how America is more "unsafe" after Iraq. Please provide hard evidence. Oh, and troops in a combat zone are not indicative of what "unsafe" means for the ordinary homeland citizen.”

“So what you're saying Oryx is that you've got the opinions of hundreds of thousands of vets. Have much time for anything else while you were there?”

““Right, unsafe. Which is why we've seen so many terrorist attacks on the homeland since 9/11. Jeesh. Some people just pray for the worst.”
Oryx
2:26:34 PM


Oryx, I live and work right here where most of the 9/11 tragedy occured. There are extreme differences between the way we secured ourselves before that date and presently. For instance, I ride the Staten Island Ferry twice a day. You can't move without a team of NYC police, federal officers and a team of bomb sniffing dogs up your butt. I am not complaining, so please do not go there. My point is that pre-9/11, we were so complacent that you could pretty much roam into just about any place you liked. Now, you are constantly being scrutinized. So, when folks that think in common with you give me that nonsense about how many attacks we have had on our soil since GWB came here and did his less than impressive grandstanding at Ground Zero, I have no choice but to dismiss it as the nonsense it is. It's a meaningless comparison because you fail to take into account the fact that security is about 10,000 times as tight as it was before the attacks. Are you truly surprised that there haven't been any attacks? You also forget that these terrorists are a patient lot. Their MO has always been with the element of surprise. They caught us with our pants down...

It's equivalent to listening to Ashcroft's parting announcements about how HE and his department have been responsible for the lower crime rates. Here in the city, the credit goes to David Dinkins for his "Safe City, Safe Streets" initiatives in the early 90's and to Giuliani for continuing what he started. I love when these asswipes take credit for things that they didn't do...”

“''The information was brought to the attention of administrators because of the influence it may have had,'' said Shank, who restricted future visits by the groups. ''I felt, from a principal's viewpoint, that the students were being put into a position that they shouldn't.''

And this bonehead doesn't think that recruiters are putting impressionable young people in a position in which they should not be put?”

“I'm really starting to like this Oryx.”

“Y2- as a social worker, one makes an effort to get to know as many clients as possible. I don't know how you turned "hundreds or thousands" into "hundreds of thousands", but it's particularly indicative of someone who resorts to cheap debate tricks rather than have an open mind!”

“lol Nigal, you'll be voting for him next.”

““I'm really starting to like this Oryx.”
Nigal
2:55:43 PM

Why doesn't this surprise me?”

“It's a meaningless comparison because you fail to take into account the fact that security is about 10,000 times as tight as it was before the attacks. Are you truly surprised that there haven't been any attacks?

RIGHT!!! Homeland security was ratcheted up. Foreign operations ALSO diminished the risk. I'd *love* to see how you ferret out the effect on the level of terrorist activity that increased homeland security has produced, separate from the increased level of overseas ops!

The truth is, both domestic and foreign policy have helped.”

“BTW, *still* waiting on hard evidence that Iraq has made us less safe...”

“““I'm really starting to like this Oryx.”
Nigal
2:55:43 PM

Why doesn't this surprise me?”
Treebeard
1:57:22 PM
2/07/05

Why not? The guy is obviously compassionate, he is positive and he has a good outlook.”

“Well, I don't think that anybody is not on the same page here when it comes to us being attacked, as much as you'd like to jab at "persons of the opposite mindset". 9/11 pretty much made it simple common sense that we needed to pay attention a little more (i.e.- memos that say terrorists may fly planes into our buildings! duh!)

So, where we differ may be in the last thing you said, about our foreign policy. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. That had to be done because that was a direct result of an attack on American soil. But, I refuse to get into it with you on Iraq. I know where that's going to go...”

“Ok, so I misread hundreds or thousands into hundreds of thousands. I'll give you that.
It's not a cheap debate trick. And I'll admit that one of Kerry's main failings was seeming to move his position on various issues. I don't hink he was a particularly strong candidate. But I do know that he served his country proud initially as a soldier, and then by questioning the actions of some soldiers in some instances in Vietnam. I don't believe this was done out of opportunism. Not everyone in the military is wonderful. You take 150,000 of any group of people and you are going to get some bad apples. But it is important that the actions taken in wartime, however trying the circumstances that surround them, and expose wrongdoing, to try and make sure they don't happen again. I don't think there's a single vietnam vet who wouldn't say some very bad things took place during a particularly brutal war, as they do in all wars.
You place soldiers in a war situation and bad things are going to happen. These shouldn't be ignored. It's only by criticism that these things are exposed and action can be taken to stop them happening again.”

“Good. It's no wonder that 99% of veterans absolutely despise the 1% that trashes the military and our military engagements. This is why John F'ing Kerry didn't win: the majority of Americans prefer a patriot to a seditionist. Someone who owns up to being an adult, rather than a person with a pathetic, contrived victim mindset.”

Oryx
2:09:34 PM
last edited: 2/07/05 2:07:38 PM”

“Thanks Nigal. I know conservative, libertarian and hell, even moderate, perspectives are rare in the elitist world of backpacking, but the godawful doom-n-gloom propaganda posted here....I just can't help shaking my head at it.”

“"You place soldiers in a war situation and bad things are going to happen. These shouldn't be ignored."

So why did everyone want to ignore Kerry's war crimes when he was stumping around America?”

“Y2, I like where you're coming from in your response. I would modify your approach to embrace *skepticism* rather than criticism. John F'ing Kerry has always been self-serving. He joined the armed forces for his future career, and he used that experience to try to get elected president. There's a difference between manufacturing dissent for the advancement of one's own political perspective or career and focusing on genuine constructive criticism of bad policy that is inherent to *any* war. Saying we didn't plan for the guerilla resistance in Iraq - that's constructive criticism. Saying America is less safe than before Iraq - that's baseless criticism.”

“"....the majority of Americans prefer a patriot to a seditionist. Someone who owns up to being an adult, "

You talkin' about Dubya?

LMMFAO!!!

A patriot who hides out in a champagne unit, safe from going to war.

He sure didn't own up to or admit to his adolescent actions that continued into his forties.

And how about Dubya pumping his fist when the #&%!$ hit the fan in Iraq?

Hey, it's OK.
They're just a buncha "sand boogies" and "towel heads".

"So why did everyone want to ignore Kerry's war crimes when he was stumping around America?”
Nigal
2:09:09 PM
2/07/05

What war crimes???
last edited: 2/07/05 2:18:39 PM”

“There's no hard evidence, that seems to be lacking in Iraq altogether.
The reasons I think, and this is my view, that America is not as safe as it could be include.

$300 billion spent on Iraq - money which could instead have been spent on equipment and staff to scan containers coming into the US. There was a recent story that $18 billion to equip passenger planes with some form of anti-missile defence was too expensive. Well I guess it is if you're spending $300 billion to secure a friendly nation to procure oil from.

Money could also have been spent to beef up border sercuruty, which is woefully lacking.

Iraq has become a focus and rallying point for all anti-US exptemists. Out of this a better-supported, better manned, better skilled group will emerge, like AQ did from the Russian Invasion of Afganistan. Eventually the target will be US soil.

No country has ever won a war again terrorists by simply taking them on militarily, not one. Though the elections may help this case in Iraq. This is still up in the air though. The elections were a significant victory, but were a single battle in a continuing war.

The invasion of Iraq has forced the hands of nations like Iran and North Korea. It's a case of the chicken and the egg I know, but the only option they now have to defend themselves again potential US agression is the procurement of nukes.

11,000 troops sent to Afganistan for a few months, 150,000 troops sent to Iraq. You think Bin Laden would still be about if those kinds of resources had been lent to his capture?

The turning away of other nations, united in support of the US after 9/11. Now there will continue to be reluctance to help the US. Big and powerful though it is, America can't do it all itself.
last edited: 2/07/05 2:19:38 PM”

“Good MarkO. When you can't contribute, introduce a red herring about our President's past.”

“Gee Tommy, where were YOU during Vietnam?

The only way Bush would have been square in you eyes is if he was a stinky, draft card burning coward hippy.”

“Elitist world of backpacking???

I suppose one might find all that conservative, libertinian, etc perspective among a much less elitist group at, say a golf/country club.”

“$300 billion spent on Iraq - money which could instead have been spent on equipment and staff to scan containers coming into the US. There was a recent story that $18 billion to equip passenger planes with some form of anti-missile defence was too expensive. Well I guess it is if you're spending $300 billion to secure a friendly nation to procure oil from.

It's all a compromise, y2. Do you fault us giving Egypt or Israel or whatever billions of dollars when that could have been spent on one tiny subset of the whole homeland defense milieu?

Money could also have been spent to beef up border sercuruty, which is woefully lacking.

No argument there. Still, it's a strectch to imagine that $300 billion would have been directed to border security absent the Iraq war.

Iraq has become a focus and rallying point for all anti-US exptemists. Out of this a better-supported, better manned, better skilled group will emerge, like AQ did from the Russian Invasion of Afganistan. Eventually the target will be US soil.

??? Speculation! Judging from the first vote, Iraq is still in the balance between a free country and one beaten and terrorized into a subjugated populuation. If anything, the U.S. is helping to enable the free country to emerge in the face of vicious foreign terrorist activity.

No country has ever won a war again terrorists by simply taking them on militarily, not one.

Well, judging from the lack of homeland attacks, and judging from the way Al Zaqawri (sp?) has replaced Bin Laden as the lead terrorist of any importance, I'd say your point is unsupported. And, keeping in mind that there's been a lot of non-military behind-the-scenes activities, your point further falls into tin-foil hat territory.

The invasion of Iraq has forced the hands of nations like Iran and North Korea. It's a case of the chicken and the egg I know, but the only option they now have to defend themselves again potential US agression is the procurement of nukes.

Newsflash: North Korea developed nukes during Clinton's reign. Iran is simply using nukes as a means of leverage to influence Iraq.

11,000 troops sent to Afganistan for a few months, 150,000 troops sent to Iraq. You think Bin Laden would still be about if those kinds of resources had been lent to his capture?

The turning away of other nations, united in support of the US after 9/11. Now there will continue to be reluctance to help the US. Big and powerful though it is, America can't do it all itself.”

“Good MarkO. When you can't contribute, introduce a red herring about our President's past.”
Oryx
3:19:48 PM


And what was it you said about John Kerry's Vietnam service?????”

“"So why did everyone want to ignore Kerry's war crimes when he was stumping around America?”
Nigal
2:09:09 PM
2/07/05

What war crimes???”

Kerry had said, during an April 18, 1971, appearance on Meet the Press: "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

You really were asleep at wheel for the last election weren’t ya Tom. And here I thought you were all informed and stuff.”

“Oryx - It's not basless criticism to be able to look at the bigger picture of what the end results of an ill-conceived the policy might be instead of how the policy is being carried out. Sure the post-invastion situation in Iraq could have been handled better, but that in any way connect with the question of whether is was right to send the soldiers in harm's way in the first place. They were sent there as they were told Saddam and his WMDs posed a terror threat to Americans. This wasn't true. He was in the box. Seeking to stifle genuine criticism of policy takes you down the road to totalitarianism.”

“Only a blithering idiot could say that seething worldwide anti-Americanism is bad for our security.”

““Only a blithering idiot could say that seething worldwide anti-Americanism is bad for our security.”

Unless that anti-Americanism was coming from the liberal left...then it's called patriotic.
last edited: 2/07/05 2:36:56 PM”

“Ooooo, Nigal!!
Ya just love them hippies, don't ya??

During Vietnam I was in high school then a college student and then a letter carrier.
I was the one of the only non-veterans out of about 35 carriers.

In 1970, the year I was 18, I got lucky with the draft lottery........#344 !!!

Oryx, I was just pickin' on what you said.

Oh yeah, "seditionist" ???
That's cute!!
Now, how about calling me a communist traitor?”

“of what the end results of an ill-conceived the policy might be

Still waiting for evidence that the policy in its broadest sense was "ill-conceived" in terms of the relative safety of the homeland!”

“a) Copromise, $300 billion of your money is a pretty big compromise for what it turns out was an insignificant threat.

b) No, but more of it certainly could. The support would have been there had the spin-efforts lent to getting support for the invasion been directed to the cause.

c) Lack of homeland attacks- You repeatedly cite this. But this is an ongoing battle. You create enemies and you may not pay for this until years down the line. One thing AQ has proved to have is patience. The one thing working in America's favor is that most terror groups are working within their own country. But still, historically, terrorism works, unfortunately. It needs to be tackled in smarter ways, like cutting off support at the base. The US invasion of Iraq has had the reverse effect.

I listen these two countries, but there are others. You can't keep using the stick with no carrot. For every dictator and corrupt regime the first priority will be to develop nukes. They offer the only mild protection against a pre-emptive strike, but a country that spends more on it's military that the next 15 countries combined.”

“worldwide anti-Americanism

Another baseless mantra from the Left. Like anyone who reads the papers is going to say it's the U.S. vs. the World.

Here's a hint: America has always been hated throughout the world. That's due to despotic brainwashing and religious brainwashing and just plain ignorance. Oh, and when the U.S. attacks a country that had strong economic ties to Old Europe, that's a cause too!”

“Oryx. I've just listed why it's ill-conceived and the potential for making America unsafe. I can't tell you what might happen, nor can Dubya. But what I can say is that Bush is playing a hugely risky game with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Russian Roulette if you like. If he's right then I'll take my hat off too him, as he'll have taken on the risk and won. If he's wrong then it's the American people who will pay. Pay the same price as the soldiers who were sent into danger and were told they were defending Americans, when really, they was promoting America's long-term strategic interest. I don't believe America's best interest is ever served by pre-emptive war.”

“Geez, somebody has had their brain washed and dried.

You sound just like the guys on the radio, Oryx.

It's cult, get out now!!!

It's too late for Nigal, he's really gone!”

“a) Copromise, $300 billion of your money is a pretty big compromise for what it turns out was an insignificant threat.

Yes, easy to claim with 20/20 hindsight. It was the war that allowed you to state your position in such confident terms. That doesn't mean, however, that we're less safe.

b) No, but more of it certainly could. The support would have been there had the spin-efforts lent to getting support for the invasion been directed to the cause.

Are you kidding? Bush has always had some sick infatuation with Vincente Fox. I highly doubt Bush would've shored up Mexican-U.S. borders anyway. He's more concerned about legalizing illegal immigrants.

c) Lack of homeland attacks- You repeatedly cite this. But this is an ongoing battle. You create enemies and you may not pay for this until years down the line. One thing AQ has proved to have is patience. The one thing working in America's favor is that most terror groups are working within their own country. But still, historically, terrorism works, unfortunately. It needs to be tackled in smarter ways, like cutting off support at the base. The US invasion of Iraq has had the reverse effect.

That's it - keep shifting the goal posts. Before the war there was dire warnings about a spate of homeland terrorism if we waged war on Iraq. Guess what - there weren't any attacks, unless you count the anthrax scare that didn't amount to diddly. If there's an attack 15 years from now, you'll be yelling "it was because of Iraq!" from your armchair.

I listen these two countries, but there are others. You can't keep using the stick with no carrot.

Actually, we've used both. We've been rewarding countries that have been cooperating.”

“America has not always been hated Oryx. There has been a significant change in the opinion of America following the Invasion of Iraq - the ignoring of the securuity council, and the scant regard for international treaties of any kind, be they trade, military, environmental or geopolitical.
Many in the world pre-November simply put the blame on Bush and not the American people. Post-election they were forced to re-think this view.”

“Hell, 15 years from now I'll be in a wheelchair.

y2 is right, "they" don't blame the American people.

They blame the administration.
last edited: 2/07/05 2:58:02 PM”

“But what I can say is that Bush is playing a hugely risky game with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Well no kidding. Thank you terrorists for the post 9/11 world! You make it sound like Bush created the game just for his own amusement. The fact is, Bush gave a strong response to 9/11, there haven't been any homeland attacks or any hard evidence we're less safe, and you're just angry because you were wrong in the first place.”